Chapter 2 The opinions and recommendations published in 2015 1. Two emergency recommendations Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the amended Law of 30 October 2007 that was instituted, the Contrôleur général of places of deprivation of liberty has the possibility, if he observes a serious violation of the fundamental rights of persons deprived of their liberty, to call on the competent authorities, giving them a fixed deadline to respond, and to verify that the reported violation is no longer taking place. If he deems it necessary, the Contrôleur général can make his observations and the received replies public. In 2015, the Contrôleur général implemented this emergency procedure twice. 1.1 Urgent Recommendations dated 13 April 2015 concerning the remand prison of Strasbourg (Bas-Rhin) During the visit to the remand prison of Strasbourg from 9 to 13 March 2015, the observations revealed serious violations of the fundamental rights of the detainees in the said institution. The physical detention conditions severely violated the dignity of the incarcerated people: insalubrious water sources and the exercise yard washrooms, no separating walls in the showers, no hot water in the cells, moist and degraded cells, very low temperatures in the cells, etc. Moreover, it was noted that the observations made after the first visit of the remand prison in 2009 were not taken into account and that the general situation of the institution had worsened. A severe violation of medical privilege was observed, with the presence of CCTV cameras in the rooms dedicated to the therapeutic activities of the psychiatric service. The CGLPL recommended the removal of this CCTV apparatus. The attention of the inspectors was drawn to the absence of effective measures implemented by the prison administration after a declaration was made by a detainee, telling the medical service that he was a victim of violence perpetrated by his fellow prisoner. In fact, while an emergency report was made by the doctor to the institution, recommending that the detainee concerned should be moved to another cell, the detainee was visited by an officer, in the presence of his fellow prisoner, to give details on the alleged violence. The detainee was not moved to a different cell. On the next day, the person concerned stated that he was raped by his fellow prisoner at night. The Contrôleur général deemed that the lack of follow-up measures to the report constituted a serious violation of the preservation of the physical integrity of the person concerned, and this was made worse by the fact that the confidentiality of the exchanges was not maintained. He stated that the protection measures should be taken as soon as possible by the administration in order to protect the integrity of the detainees. The low number of requests for interviews, the opening of a large number of letters addressed to the Contrôleur général (in violation of the provisions of Article 4 of the Prisons Act 40